Ithaca 37 "Trench Gun" - Opinions Requested

[mtrpdw]

A friend in Florida recently purchased a 1963 Ithaca shotgun which had, to me, some interesting features.

First off, this Ithaca 37 was NEVER held out to be an original Vietnam issue Trench Gun. This seems to be supported by the fact that it sold for around $550.00.

Story was from the person, in his late 20's, who sold it (and we know how stories go), that it was his grandfather's gun, who was a weapons tech for the U.S. Air Force in the Vietnam conflict - time frame: unknown.

The 37 was used for perimeter security duties by the grandfather. He brought it back with him when he finished his tour, and owned it until his death, when it was passed on to other family members.

There are no U.S. military martial markings on the gun, and the serial number range is outside known military issue 37's.

The stock Sling Swivel inletting, which appears precise and professional, is more consistent with Stevens 520/620 Trench Guns - never seen it on Ithaca 37 Trench or Riot guns.

Butt Plate looks to be a replacement.

Additionally, the transverse/cross grooves for the Bayonet Lug Screws appear professionally milled, but shiny - not parkerized over.

Bayonet Adaptor/Heat Shield definitely looks legit.

The parkerized finish on the gun and heat shield look the same, and appear to be at least a 30 year, older grey/green finish.

The Barrel "CYL" choke marking has been over-stamped with "FULL", and there is a star (*) stamped on chamber/lug area.

Most interesting for me was that the receiver has the plain "Riot/Trench Gun" finish - no waterfowl scene.

Unless I'm wrong, I didn't think Ithaca didn't produce plain "Riot/Trench Gun" receiver finishes until at least 1965/66 - the serial number on this gun shows it was produces in 1963.

Just looking for professional opinions on what this 37 might be. If it is a clone, or maybe a police gun, it was made up long before faking 37 Trench guns were popular.

Your thoughts???

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.