Another Parker Hammer TL

[Anthony Christensen]

Hello,

Believe that this S/N 47950 Parker Hammer Top Lever shotgun has the following characteristics based on researching information in the Serialization book loaned to me by my gunsmith plus information contained on the PGCA web site:
Frame Size 2
Weight 5 lbs 2 oz
Grade no marking - grade 0
Barrel length is 32 inches as measured and they therefore are full length
Barrels are Twist
12 Ga
No extras
Serial number assigned in 1886. Next to last S/N in series per web site.5491

5492

5493

5494

5495

5496

5497

5498

5499
Straight stock
Original butt plate but cracked and repaired with extra retaining screw.

It seems to be a standard production grade 12 Ga Parker with all the standard markings and features for the time frame in which it was built.

I would appreciate any information that confirms or updates my assessment and understanding of the data in the sources mentioned above.
Yes, the hammer screws and hammers have been welded. As I recall the conversation in the mid-1970s, my Dad and his gunsmith family friend did not want the shotgun to be able to be fired with modern loads.
This shotgun was owned by my Grandfather. Believe that he obtained it while he was in Utah.

The fit of this shotgun is tight in getting it lined up to reassemble and then closing the action. I am tempted to compare it favorably with my field grade Browning 525 over and under, its just not so shiny.

Hope the large amount of picture data attached does not bog down this communication.

Thank you in advance for any feedback.

Regards,

Tony C

[George Lander]

Anthony: You have a fine old Parker in what appears to be very decent original condition. Please do not attempt to refinish the metal or the wood. Join the PGCA & order a letter ($40.00) and get the history on your great gun.

Best Regards, George

[Anthony Christensen]

George, thank you for the rapid reply. Although I am not a serious collector of firearms, I do understand a bit about original condition. My gunsmith friend is a member of the Colorado Gun Collectors Association and has shared information in his effort to educate me. He will help prevent me from doing something unwise.
I have the request for a research letter form printed up. Joining PGCA and requesting a letter looks like a great deal. You get the full course meal, not just a drink and salad so to speak. Besides that, supporting an excellent historical preservation organization is also a good thing.
Thanks.

Tony

[Dean Romig]

Anthony, we all applaud your support and your fine motives in doing so and we welcome you openly to our PGCA family.

Dean

[Mark Landskov]

Provided everything else is in working order, Brad Bachelder could undo the welding and restore the locks for proper function, while maintaining the aged appearance.

[David Hamilton]

Do the hammers work? The welding should prevent cocking the hammers? The weight, 5 lbs 2 ounces, is the un-struck weight of the barrels before they were finished. We shoot guns like yours all the time. Check it out it may be fine to shoot, particularly with those massive barrels. That is very heavy for a 12 gauge. Have you tried a 10 gauge shell in the chambers? David

[Anthony Christensen]

The hammers do not work. At least they do not cock readily and I do not intend to apply brute force. I don't know if anything was done internally to the lock mechanism. All the screws on this Parker show use-abuse as they all have slot deformation to varying degrees.
Based on your question, I dug out a 12 Ga A-Zoom snap cap. The fit in the chambers is very sloppy, maybe as much as a 1/16th inch sloppy! A 12 Ga snap cap rattles around!
Is there a dimension for the breach diameter that I could check with a caliper to verify the 10 Ga chambers?
If this Parker is a 10 Ga which it now appears to be, then the Parker Gun Serialization book has a data entry error for S/N 47950 on page 202.
The request for a PGCA research letter and the check went into the mail today.

Tony

[Larry Frey]

Tony,
If it is a 10 gage as it appears then a couple of things may have occurred. Either the entry was incorrect which I doubt as your gun was produced in a batch of 19 same grade/gage guns which was typical of PB gun manufacturing practices at that time or perhaps the gun was returned for a set of 10 gage barrels which was a service also offered by PB. Let’s hope the PGCA letter you sent for can shed some light on this question.

[Anthony Christensen]

First, please delete all previous comments about S/N 47950 being a 10 Ga shotgun. It was my check procedure that was sloppy. I did not remove the barrels from the action and remove the extractor. Therefore, the snap cap was not fully chambered since it was engaged with and stopped by the extractor.

Second, I apologize for any confusion my comments may have caused.

With the extractor removed, both 12 Ga Winchester and Remington shells fit well.
Although I do not have any 10 Ga shells to use as a check, it appears that there is not chamber clearance enough for a 10 Ga shell to be chambered.
Actually, I am not at all familiar with the 10 Ga shell size or any other of its characteristics.
The 12 Ga A-Zoom snap cap seems to be a reasonable check tool as its base diameter matches the base diameters of the Winchester and Remington shells within .002 inch. The snap cap forward section is round with a diameter very similar to the factory shells. The plastic section of the factory shells is not quite round but both chamber fine in both barrels.

Also, please ignore the comment that the Parker Gun Serialization book might have a data entry error on page 202.

TC

[Anthony Christensen]

A question on ammunition circa 1886-87 vs now.
What was the standard shotgun shell construction utilized in the 1886-87 time frame?
Brass, paper with metal base, or?

Another question, this one related to manufacturing tolerances.
Would the 1886-87 standard practice 12 Ga shotgun barrel chamber production process result in a generous tolerance allowance for the shell compared to today's shotguns?

Tony C

[Mark Landskov]

My 1877 Lifter 12 gauge has textbook standard chambers for our modern shells. Back then, the 12A would have been one of the proper choices. In 1881, WRA Co. sold both paper and brass loaded shells. The catalog has no reference to 12A, which may have been a UMC and/or Parker shell designation, I dunno. By 1886, the 'A' designation may have been obsolete. The 'B' designation was old news by then. Cheers!

[Anthony Christensen]

Thank you for the information.

TC