Shotgun Forum banner

Dog of the Week

1244 Views 18 Replies 13 Participants Last post by  Jeff Mull
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Slim, that 2nd picture almost made me hurl! Otherwise it looks like a pretty good gun. Sad.
oouuch :shock: , ouch :roll: , oohhh :shock:, ouwtch :roll:
Folks, what would that barrel bring?

How about the stock and forend?

For a couple of bucks worth of filler screws, you could plug all the holes, and she'd look a lot, lot better.

At four hundred bucks, she'd be a screaming bargain, holes and all. :wink:
WHY...would you drill into the loading port like that?
I agree with SuperXOne. The gun is what it is. I think filler screws would help the looks. For the price, I'd put in the filler screws and shoot the heck out of it. Looks like a good gun, otherwise.

If it was ever refinished, a good craftsman could TIG weld those filler screws flush with the surface, draw file, polish, touch up the engraving and it would look a lot better. It's a shooter, not a collector.

SuperXOne said:
At four hundred bucks, she'd be a screaming bargain, holes and all. :wink:
But it said $595 + $35 shipping($630).
The ventilated reciever model or the ported reciever model?

Bondo the holes and it would make a nice south Texas rough couontry quail gun...or maybe a great chukar gun for climbing up those slippery shale slopes.

I'd say he's asking about $200 to much for starters but then again selling nust the barrel and wood on the parts market would fetch just about what he's asking as a starting price.
Maybe I'll get my Sweet 16 "receiver ported" to reduce the muzzle jump... {CR8 .
DaddyRabbit said:
Absolute idiots and their power tools. :(
I agree with you DannyRabbit..........

Hey guys, I'm not so sure that this is a "sweet". The barrel and buttstock appear to be, but they could have easily been replaced. What stands out in the photo is the trigger and safety.....should be gold plated, but appears blued. It's possible that it was worn off by extensive use, but usually there are some traces left behind. IMO the best way to verify/identify an unmarked (stealth/ghost) sweet sixteen is to check for the milling of the inner walls of the receiver..... just inside of the loading/carrier region. Metal should be removed, if it's flat then it's a standard sixteen. There isn't a photo showing us this view. The gun would have to be inverted to see it.

I guess what I am saying is, this gun could have started out as a "parts only" gun because of the mangled receiver, and later converted into a functioning gun by adding the appropriate parts to make a sale. And in this case, it may appear to be something that it is not. If anyone is interested in the gun I would investigate first. Also if the gun is a '47 then the gun, barrel, buttstock, etc., would have matching serial #'s. Just my .02 cents.

Happy holidays to everyone.....A5-HUNTER
See less See more
Well, as much as we hate it, it was surely one functional shotgun to the owner to mount the scope on it. It wasn't done recently that's for sure. I think it has character. I wouldn't call the person that made the gun practical for their use and idiot, I would call them our ancestors because that's what they were. They were people who bought shotgun shells for a nickel each and made every one count. They were people that were taken advantage of by the wealthy "idiots" whom made gentlemens' agreements with a handshake and caused tax seizures of property by not paying the property taxes that they agreed to for use of the land for hunting pleasure. My ancestors used their land for survival. Excuse the rant, but people back then weren't interested in the collectability of an Auto-5. They wanted a gun that would shoot EVERY time they pulled the trigger because it meant meat for the family. The reason I collect Auto-5 shotguns is because of their heritage................and mine.
See less See more

I agree that our ancestors were generally a practical and capable group when compared to these times, but many of them did stupid things. This is one of them, and not because it the gun may have been a Sweet, and not because they reduced it's value and not just because they did a poor job of it.

It's stupid because it's a bad idea, it does not work well. The A5 has a barrel that is not locked inplace on the reciever, it floats free. It will not remain parallel to any scope that is mounted to the reciever, therefore it will not be consistently accurate.

Browning knew this and that is why they mounted the rear iron sites on the slug barrels, not the reciever.

It's also stupid because they did a horrid job of mounting it. The mounts are in the thinnest part of the reciever and they overtightened them pulling the metal up with the screws. they tried to make up for this by drilling lots of mounting holes. (If you cant tie good knots tie lots of them)

This gun was trashed for no good reason by a hack with a drill and a scope. All of my very practical ancestors would have rolled thier eyes and walked away knowing that the village idiot was playing at being a gunsmith.

See less See more
Chasu, you're right, the term "idiot" is a little harsh. Anytime A5 lovers see things like this we sort of get carried away. Did not mean to offend anyone by agreeing to an earlier post, and I apologize. But mounting a sight to the receiver of an A5 makes no sense to me. The receiver is fixed but the barrel moves during operation. If any type of sight were to mounted to the gun, then the barrel would have been the better choice. That's why Browning made the "buck" barrels with iron sights. I guess the owner wanted a scope for his purposes, but still........... :?

Sorry Jeff, you must have sent your post while I was writing/sending mine. Your's explains it a little better. I'm glad that we agree.

P.S.--- I have "dial up", so my computer is really SLOW......... :(

C'mon guys, That is truly a lightened Sweet Sixteen. Think how much lighter it is! PLUS it was brought into the 21st Century by being ported! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well, I did say "we hate it" I never said that I liked it.

Plus, I would never do anything like that to any of my guns, but I can see that people do buy gadgets of all sorts and put them on their guns. We all know there's a bunch out there even today that don't make much sense, but people are still doing it.

A lot of what we call stupid today is what the consensus could have very well been that many years ago. That's like saying that my "practical ancestors" would have worn a hardhat on a construction site a hundred years ago. Sorry, but as much sense as it makes today..........They didn't even have them back then.

I hate the fact that someone drilled holes in that Auto 5 Sixteen, but I won't loose any sleep over it or call them stupid because they tried something that may have seemed to work, as I'm sure as well that they figured it was not such a good idea, because it's not still on the shotgun. The ideas we have, but never try will never see success..........Right?

I won't buy it or one like it. No biggie. My ancestors were "crafty" and I, as well as yourselves, I'm sure, have gained a wealthy portion of their wisdom by learning from their mistakes. We know, we've all made our own share of them.
See less See more
Well well, it's ironic that I would find another one. This one has the slug barrel with rifle sights. It's on AuctionArms right now. ... 1229225045

Thanks for posting the other picture. There are always one or two of these on the market. Based on that one might assume there are a lot of them around. BUT, I think the real reason we see so many is because they are darned hard to sell with so many unmolested A5's on the market.

I'd bet that on any given day there are more A5's for sale on the net than any other "classic" shotgun. We could test that if we could all agree on a definition of "classic".

Happy New Year!

1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.