Parker stock reinforcing rod.

[Clint Meier]

Howdy,
I am still a newbie to these forums, and while I don't own a Parker yet, I do get to handle quite a few of them. I read here once about a hickory rod that Parker installed in their butt stocks to reinforce them through the grip. Evidently, this rod went from the end of the butt all the way up through the grip to the back of the action. No pictures were provided, and the discussion was minimal.
I was doing some conservation work on a Parker GH with Damascus barrels that had this feature, and thought I'd pass a couple of pics along showing what I could see. Although I didn't measure the diameter of the rod, it was about 5/8" or 3/4" in diameter, and as you can see was stamped twice with "Pat. SEP. 10, 1895".
Does anyone here know if this was done to all Parkers after this patent date, or only ones of certain grades, etc.? I am interested, because this is only the second one like this I have seen. Thank you for your insight....Clint.

[Chuck Bishop]

Clint,

The PH Parker that you recheckered and added the wood to the butt stock had that reinforcing rod in it or at least at had it before Robert Fulton repaired the crack in the grip before sending it to you.

Usually this hickory rod is seen on much earlier hammerless guns so it was unusual to see it on a 1926 gun. The stock had been shortened earlier in it's life so it was interesting to see the patent stamp on the butt stock. Does the stock have the patent stamp just behing the grip cap? Also the reinforcing rod on mine measured 9/16". Attached are a couple of photo's.

Regards,

Chuck

[Dean Romig]

I believe these are the first examples of the 1895 pat'd hickory reinforcing rod we have been shown on the PGCA forums to date of guns other than those with skeleton buttplates where the rod end and sometimes the wood-capped boring closer to the heel to adjust weight of the buttstock is visible without necessitating the removal of the buttplate. Certainly the first example I have ever seen with the patent stamp under the buttplate.
Thanks for the pictures Clint and Chuck.



.

[Clint Meier]

Gentlemen,
Chuck, yours was the first one I had ever seen. This second one, above, is serial # 8709X, made in 1897 according to the charts. It did not have the patent date stamped on the belly of the stock, as shown in your second pic. I would have noticed , as it is shown very prominently on your gun. This GH got a pretty thorough going over. I have attached a few more before and after pics of it. Someone had really butchereded up the forearm checkering. Dean, thanks for your pic of the reinforced rod visible through skeleton butt plate. I really appreciate your input, guys! Best regards.........Clint.

[Bill Murphy]

Dean, how did you identify your pictured butt as a hickory rod? Does it have the patent stamp behind the grip? How many hickory rods do we think exist behind the buttplates of guns that have no stamp behind the grip?

[Austin W Hogan]

I am quite surprised to see the grain of the dowel in the same plane as that of the stock. I had always thought the purpose of the dowel was to strengthen the wrist of a stock with complex grain structure near the wrist. This would best be done by aligning the dowel grain at a right angle to that of the stock.

Best, Austin

[Dean Romig]

Bill, I determined that the one that can be seen in the picture of my DH (1898) as being a reinforcing rod/dowell because it is in the correct position for alignment right through the wrist to the stock head while the larger plug closer to the heel of the butt which can't be seen in this picture is for the purpose of altering the weight of the buttstock. If it ever had the patent stamp behind the grip cap it must have been sanded off when the buttstock had been poorly refinished long before it became mine.

[Chuck Bishop]

My PH was cracked from behind the top tang and down through both sides of the pistol grip and had been there for as long as I can remember it being in posession of my grandfather. You could spread the cracks apart but I guess the rod kept it from splitting in two. I remember Robert Fulton at Stock Fixers calling me and asking what that rod was for since he had never seen one on a Parker stock before. I'm sure he has seen his share of broken Parker stocks in his line of work. He told me he had to drill out the rod at the head of the stock in order to repair the cracks.

I agree that the grain of that rod should be turned 90 degrees for maximum effectiveness. Maybe that's why it's not seen on many stocks, the modification didn't work as well as planned.

Nice restoration of that GH Clint. Pretty wood. What type of finish did you use?

[Dave Suponski]

I have a DH with two bored holes in the stock like Deans gun.No patent date.I am still not convinced that these guns had the hickory rod or Parker needed two holes to add/remove weight for balance.

[Dean Romig]

I will guarantee the larger plug closer to the heel is not for a reinforcing rod and on my DH, at least, and probably on yours too Dave, the "plug" closer to the toe is of the appripriate size and in the correct position for the reinforcing rod.

[Larry Frey]

Dave,
I believe from past discussions it's the size and location that determine if the plugs are for weight (appx. 1" dia.) or reinforcement rods (appx. 9/16" dia.) Below is a pic of a C grade with two 1" diameter holes presumably for balance.

[Chuck Bishop]

Dave, there's only 1 way to find out. Get out the chisel! :corn:

[Dave Suponski]

Here's a picture of my butt.....Now that I have your attention...:rotf: 1896 DH 2 frame both plugs measure 7/8" in diameter. No reinforcing rod here.Will somebody please run up to Meriden ask about this stuff....

[Austin W Hogan]

Do you think a stud finder would reveal the depth of the plug and what is behind the plug?

Best, Austin

[Dean Romig]

Brilliant!! :clap:

[Dean Romig]

Patent No. 545,898

Dave, do you have the verbiage of this patent? Does it indicate the diameter of the reinforcing rod?

The rod/dowell/plug in my DH measures .725" and is at the correct position in the butt to run forward through the wrist into the head of the stock. The width of the wrist of my stock is 1 1/8" and the height is 1 5/8" which certainly is large enough to accomodate a hickory rod of .725"

The plug closer to the heel of mine is also 7/8" or .87"


.

[Steve Huffman]

Would a Xray show anything ? Oh God I wonder if we could put this through to have insurance pay with our up and coming HEALTHCARE

[Dave Suponski]

I think I do Dean.Will check later today.

[Bill Murphy]

Next time I go in for an MRI, I will try to carry the back end of a Parker in with me.

[Robin Lewis]

I think this is what you are looking for. If you have trouble reading it here, I found it at this web link http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=JyR0AAAAEBAJ&dq=545898 (http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=JyR0AAAAEBAJ&dq=545898) which may be easier to read.

[Dean Romig]

I think, from reading the patent, that we can deduce a couple of things, one being that it is possible and quite likely that guns of different frame sizes may have had "strengthening rods" of different diameters inserted. Further, that the hickory was a lighter, less dense wood and the use of this rod in a gunstock likely necessitated boring an additional hole to add weight - hence the two plugs of different sizes we often see. Also, the verbiage of the patent indicates that stocks with cross grain at the "neck" were the candidates for the strengthening rod (but the possibility exists that this feature may have also been used on smaller frame guns).

[Dave Suponski]

Thanks for posting that Robin.One less thing to do tonight.I would think the hickory rod dia could be dictated by frame size.

[Clint Meier]

Howdy gents, I have been out of town meeting my newest grandson, and have some catching up to do. First, regarding Chuck Bishop's query regarding the type of finish I used, I am not a purist, and may be considered a heretic by some, and if so, so be it. I try and use modern technology and materials to the best advantage whenever possible, striving for durability and good looks in the finished product. After stripping the finish, treating for oil soak and light sanding as needed, I apply a water-thin epoxy resin, allowing the wood to soak up as much of it as it will in about 30 minutes time. This epoxy is applied to all sufaces, inside and out. While some use commercial sealers, or other oil finishes thinned with mineral spirits to seal the wood, I can't help but believe that epoxy forms a better barrier against both future oil soak and moisture protection of the wood than does any oil based finish/sealer. I then fill the grain by wet sanding with a boiled linseed oil based formula with sealers and dryers of my own concoction. After the grain is filled, I use different materials, finishes and techniques to achieve the look desired by the client, i.e. a soft luster, low gloss, or high gloss finish. This client wanted a high gloss to make the grain "pop", so George Brother's Linspeed finish was applied and wiped off.

I wanted to thank both Dean and Robin for the patent info and pics on the reinforcing rod. This info and the discussion it generated was particularly of interest. I seems reasonable to me that quite a few reinforced Parkers which may have had the patent stamp on the butt, which were fitted with their originally thin curved butt plates may have been shortened a bit to have recoil pads attached, and thereby eliminating the stamped patent marks they may have once had. It would also make sense to me that Parkers fitted with skeleton butt plates may have had their patent stamps applied on the belly of their stocks behind the grip cap.

Austin Hogan's comment about the grain in the reinforcing rod being oriented the same as the butt in Chuck's pic, and not at 90 degrees to it for maximum strength, got me to thinking. If the purpose was to reinforce the "curly" or "cross-grained" wood up in the neck or grip of the stock, could it be that the rod was oriented and glued into place to be at 90 degrees to the grain up in the neck or grip of the stock, with no regard to the grain orientation in the butt, where it wasn't needed and made no difference? Any thoughts gents?

[Dean Romig]

Austin Hogan's comment about the grain in the reinforcing rod being oriented the same as the butt in Chuck's pic, and not at 90 degrees to it for maximum strength, got me to thinking. If the purpose was to reinforce the "curly" or "cross-grained" wood up in the neck or grip of the stock, could it be that the rod was oriented and glued into place to be at 90 degrees to the grain up in the neck or grip of the stock, with no regard to the grain orientation in the butt, where it wasn't needed and made no difference? Any thoughts gents?

Clint, your thoughts on the grain orientation of the reinforcing rod make perfect sense. Several such Parkers would need to be examined in order to support your theory however. Unfortunately there aren't very many with the reinforcing rod where the orientation of the grain can be easily determined. It would be interesting if members or visitors here can take a close look at their Parkers with this patented feature and post their findings here.