I have the opportunity to purhcase a Browning Safari .243 (Sako action) from the "salt wood" era. My question is - are there any of these rifles that are NOT effected by this problem? What if I seperate stock from barrel and see no damage? I sometimes see it stated that "90% of these rifles are effected" - what about the other 10%?
Any thoughts/comments are appreciated.

-Vlad

"90%" refers to the quantity from certain years. the supposed years affected are '67 thru '69 however i've personally owned safari's and superposed's into '71 that were affected and seen at least one super from '66 but i think that was just a late year # assignment that didn't get stocked till '67. you may or may not see damage - yet. just depends but if is from those 5 years, unless you check w/ the silver nitrate you SHOULD assume it is affected. but that still leaves '57-'66 and '72 thru '74 (per schwings book on the supers, the factory finally destroyed all the remaining affected wood in '72). my personal attitude twds those models (and other models were affected too but my experience has been only these) is that if '67 thru '69 it IS salt wood and if '70-'71 it PROBABLY is salt wood.

roger

No way to know without checking. Start with the buttplate screws; pull them out and if they're rusted (or even break off in the removal process) you'll know you have a problem. If they come out clean, remove the action and look for pitting, especially around the magazine box.

If it's a saltwood gun, the damage usually isn't "slight", it'll be noticeable. If there's just a little rust that might be from neglect instead of salt, use silver nitrate to be sure.

Thanks for the really quick responses - I appreciate it. I think though, I wasn't really clear in my question. My question is - if I seperate the barrel/stock, remove the butt screws and still see no damage from a known "salt wood" era gun, what do I do? Is it possible to find one that is not damaged? or is it just a ticking time bomb?

Thanks again, Vlad

it is possible in the affected years for there to be non-affected guns. however that 90% figure for 67-69 is probably good. and just because is "no sign" of salt yet does not mean there isn't a problem; can lay dormant a long time. silver nitrate is only way to know for sure. and typically is advised to check the butt but to me that's inconclusive as the way the blanks were stacked you could have a problem in the butt region but not around the action/bbl or vice-versa. check inletting and butt both.

quote:

Originally posted by Vladimir:
My question is - if I seperate the barrel/stock, remove the butt screws and still see no damage from a known "salt wood" era gun, what do I do? Is it possible to find one that is not damaged? or is it just a ticking time bomb?

Thanks again, Vlad

Vlad - there's a chemical solution "test" that can be done to detect the presence of salt. Now, ufortunatley, my 8th-grade chemistry is not so good anymore, but in effect it's a simple application of an acid or base that you're trying to get to react with the opposite which would be present with salt.

Personally, I haven't done it in so long that I can't remember the recipe. BUT Someone here will know what i'm talking about and will do doubt have the instructions for you.

Aside from that, contact one of the better-known gun dealers and ask them how it's done... they should all know.

This type of test should be definitive and enable you to sleep well at night - knowing one way or the other.

What are the serial number ranges for these years?I have a couple of these rifles also..
Good luck

You can check the year of manufacture on the Browning website.

If a gun is 30 years old and show no sign of corrosion from salt in the stock, then I seriously doubt that you're going to ever see a problem. Of course, the amount of ambient moisture where the gun has been located would have something to do with it, but even in the driest climates there are plenty of opportunities for enough moisture exposure to "set off" a rusting binge.

The salt wood Brownings that I have seen have been clearly problems. An examination of the barreled action out of the stock is enough to satisfy me in regard to salt wood.

Thank you Stonecreek,

My line of thinking was along the same as yours, I just wondered if I was missing something. I frankly can't imagine there being no damage at all for the first 30 years and then all of a sudden it showing up. I could be wrong but, seems illogical to me.

-Vlad

I've heard references over the years to this, and understand that it is from high salt content int he wood, but could someone explain to me how this came about? How did a bunch of salty corrosive wood end up being used as gunstocks by a major manufacturer?

It was an attempt to speed the blank drying process by using salt to draw the moisture out of the wood. The problem was that the salt leached into the wood at the same time the moisture was coming out. It was a VERY expensive experiment for Browning.

How do use the silver nitrate?

This is the best description I've read of the "salt gun" history:

"The best discussion of the Browning salt wood issue is in Ned
Schwing's "Browning Superposed" book (Krause Press, 1996). According
to Schwing, in the mid '60s Browning needed a better supply of high
grade walnut for it's guns. A California contractor had a large
inventory of good walnut taken from clearing power line right of ways.
Demand for Browning guns was at an all time high and the usual kiln
drying process for walnut was too slow to produce what was needed.
Rapid kiln drying also produced cracks in the California walnut.

Morton Salt had developed a salt solution drying process successfully
used in the furniture industry with good results. This cured the
walnut much faster than the kiln method. Browning tested it and there
were no problems, so Browning bought the process in 1965. "In an area
roughly the size of a football field, five-foot by five-foot by
eight-foot stacks of stock blanks were covered with salt. The salt was
supposed to leach out the moisture and dry the wood quickly. The
process did accomplish its purpose but the moisture that was drawn out
of the blanks on top of the stacks ran down into the blanks below,
resulting in a brine solution that soaked the lower wood blanks."
(Schwing, pp 246) The retained salt reacted with the gun metal with
the finished stock was installed. This caused the rust associated with
"the salt wood problem".

According to Schwing's interviews with Browning's Harm Williams and
Val Browning, all the salt curing was done in the US and affected at
least 90% of all Browning stocks from made from 1967 to 1969. The
problem continued to show up until 1972, but in smaller numbers. It
was then that the entire supply of walnut blanks was burned and
replaced with traditional kiln dried wood.

To detect salt wood on 1966 to 1972 guns, first check for outward
appearance of dark or discolored spots. Check every place that wood
meets metal, as on the rear of the forend and at the head of the
stock. Rust on the metal will be apparent if there is a problem.
According to Schwing, the definitive test is to remove the butt
pad/plate, scrape away a little wood from the exposed butt and apply a
1% solution of silver nitrate to the fresh wood. If the silver nitrate
remains light purple, there is no salt. If the silver nitrate turns
white, you have a salt gun.

If you can prove that you are the original owner of the salt gun,
Browning used to replace the wood for free and will probably still do
so. If you bought the gun used, you are on your own. I got a used
Superposed 410 with salt wood about ten or twelve years ago. Browning
charged me about $250, if memory serves, to replace the wood. It
wasn't free, but it was certainly a bargain price. I don't know what
the numbers today are.

By the way, Browning wasn't the only one to get taken in by the salt
wood walnut curing process. I've heard that some other gun companies
did also, but weren't quite as up front about dealing with it.

Best regards,

Bruce Buck
The Technoid writing for Shotgun Report, LLC
(Often in error. Never in doubt.)
<http://www.ShotgunReport.com>"

quote:

Originally posted by new_guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Vladimir:
My question is - if I seperate the barrel/stock, remove the butt screws and still see no damage from a known "salt wood" era gun, what do I do? Is it possible to find one that is not damaged? or is it just a ticking time bomb?

Thanks again, Vlad

Vlad - there's a chemical solution "test" that can be done to detect the presence of salt. Now, ufortunatley, my 8th-grade chemistry is not so good anymore, but in effect it's a simple application of an acid or base that you're trying to get to react with the opposite which would be present with salt.

Personally, I haven't done it in so long that I can't remember the recipe. BUT Someone here will know what i'm talking about and will do doubt have the instructions for you.

Aside from that, contact one of the better-known gun dealers and ask them how it's done... they should all know.

This type of test should be definitive and enable you to sleep well at night - knowing one way or the other.

Told Ya someone would find it! Good Job Forrest.

quote:

the definitive test is to remove the butt
pad/plate, scrape away a little wood from the exposed butt and apply a
1% solution of silver nitrate to the fresh wood. If the silver nitrate
remains light purple, there is no salt. If the silver nitrate turns
white, you have a salt gun.