One of my trap shooting buddies loaned me his Browning Broadway. Any ideas on engraving? I cleaned it up a little and will shoot just for the experience soon.
I tried to get my buddy to sell it, he no longer shoots, but he isn't interested in selling it. I'm not sure what it is worth.It's interesting... I went through my copy of the "Browning Superposed", and the BROADway was introduced in '61. Reviewing the multiple engraving options for the 60s, the gun almost has the look of a pigeon and that of a pointer sans the dogs.
Clearly pheasants and waterfowl with scroll on a nice higher grade. Alfonse Marechal is listed on page 210. He was one of a handful of family members noted as engravers. A nicely, more uniquely engraved version of the Superposed from the 1960s.
I own '65 BROADway grade 1, that I put Briley's into in order to shoot Skeet, Sporting and afield for pheasant and dove... great handmade Belgium guns.
Unfortunately, that was my thoughts also.Charlie, don't mean to be negative but anytime you disfigure a grade gun you hurt the value unless whatever was done to it is exactly what a perspective buyer wants. Unfortunately, most buyers don't indicate the desire for the addition.
I'll look.Does the gun have any markings on the receiver left side shelf (where the receiver meets the barrels)? I've seen some additional information engraved there on FN guns.
You better quit monkeying around with that forearm before you crack it.
It stays on.
No danger of me taking it off unless I'm sure I can do it correctly. The forearm will stay safely snuggled to the barrels.Stops screwing with the forearm... It stays on the barrels and moves slightly forward and back. If you take the damn thing apart you may never get it back together... please don't mess it up.
I'm a big fan of Superposed shotguns and have several, all Grade 1. Nothing of great value but I enjoy shooting them. Two of my guns had salt wood, nicely repaired by Browning with the wood replaced. Unless the wood is removed, there is no visible evidence of the corrosion. But as such, I'm sure their value is diminished although they look and shoot as well as a non-salt gun. My point is that I'm familiar with the issue.
The subject gun of this thread looks suspiciously like a salt gun. Notice the dark wood at the head of the stock where it contacts the receiver and the same where the forend wood touches the receiver. Has this gun been checked for salt wood? I've heard that if the metal hasn't rusted by now, probably no salt. If no salt, then it appears that the wood is soaked with excess oil from lubrication.
Has the wood been removed to see what's going on?
I called Browning today,they agree, this model should not be a "salt wood". While talking with them, as some of my learned TS.COM colleagues said, leave the forearm wood on unless removed by a gunsmith. I'm not the brightest bulb but I know when to leave well enough alone. However, the design sucksand it still bugs me. Fortunately, I've been married long enough to know to do what I'm told, and when I'm told, what to do . Frustrating but that is life.It being a late 1973 gun the likelyhood of salt wood is very, very low. Discoloration at this age can well come from gun oil introgression into the wood.