Solid Plunger Firing Pins

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

I am trying to see if early solid plungers had springs, my guns up to 50000 do not above that they do, Austin has noticed the same with his guns. I tried to put a spring in a 36000 gun not enough room even with just one coil of spring the firing pin would not contact the primer in the shell. I wonder if the later pins are longer? I am checking my guns maybe some other hammer gun guys can too! see my post on Springs for lifters.

[Dave Suponski]

Gary, See my post on the other thread, As far as I have seen the solid head plungers themselves were of the same length. Maybe Austin has observed differently.

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

All I have measured 3 so far all below 50000 are exactly 1" I am hesitant to check my 90000 was just refurbished 2yrs ago at turnbull, B grade titanic, hammer, You might have hit the nail on the head with deeper drilling of the hole, I will check that, You know I just have to know

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

You are probably right about the deeper drilling

[Robert Rambler]

Gary, Just pulled the pin on #51092. 1in with a spring.

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

Robert thanks now I know what the spring should look like! how far does the firing pin travel past the face of the breach? how deep is the seat for the pin? Gary

[Robert Rambler]

Gary, Please excuse the sloppy art work (was still on my first cup of JOE when I threw this together):rotf:. So as not to pull the hammer loose measurements were take with a stiff piece of wire probed down the bore and carefully marked,drawing is NOT to scale!,should be close enough for Government work?:) Also noted the spring in full compression, is shorter than the depth of its pocket,something you'll want to keep in mind when you cut your spring so as not to have "coil bind" when the hammer falls.

[Robert Rambler]

I find it interesting that guns have been noted without firing pin retraction springs. One wonders what kept the pins from sticking in the primers? I noticed on this gun the firing pin bores are angled down and in toward the guns center line. Does your 36000 gun have them bored the same way? Could the angling of the pin be what allowed it to retract without a spring on early guns, or was it just to reach the primer because the frame is so wide?
I guess I could pull the spring and see if the pin has a tendency to hang up.
A little more research and this might make a nice article for the Parker Pages?

[Austin W Hogan]

Who would have guessed the firing pins were two pieces? I had a frame inthe 36000 range purchased here on the forum a few years ago. One firing pin slid easily, the other would not move. When I removed the screw the hammer end came out but I had to give the exposed pin a tap. There is no sign of a weld; the two parts appear ro have been swaged together.
The 36000 pin is also 1 inch overall.
Parker (King) apparently thought the camming action as the barrels separated from the breech sufficient to let the primer push the pin back.

Best, Austin

[Robert Rambler]

Austin,That's an interesting discovery. I removed the spring from my gun and the pin moves away very easily as the action is opened. So I guess we can assume the spring was added later to make the "Old Reliable" even more reliable!

[Dave Suponski]

Very interesting discoveries here..

[Richard Flanders]

I was figuring on adding springs to a hammer gun I have that didn't have them originally, but you'd have to machine in the spring 'well' shown in that diagram for there to be room. Wouldn't be that difficult to do but I don't plan to do it. I wonder if those 2-pc pins of Austins are maybe not original? I can't see any advantage in having them 2-pc unless it's because it would allow replacing just the pin part if it broke or wore.

[Austin W Hogan]

Richard; One is broken and one isn't. I would imagine the broken and jammed firing pin was one of the reasons this gun had been broken up and sold for parts.
I didn't measure the firing pin angle while I had the pins out, but it appears to be about 15 degrees. That provides prettty good leverage against a spherical tip.
My own experience is that my Parker hammer gun that pierces primers opens more easily than my Fox.
Best, Austin

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

This is what this forum is all about sharing information and new discoveries,there is so much we do not know about these wonderful old guns, the knowledge this group has amassed about Parker guns and history is why we are the leading gun collecting organization or should I say one of the leading groups, The LC guys might not approve, just kidding.

[Richard Flanders]

Austin. Was that broken pin originally 2-pc with a pin swaged into the larger part or is it just a broken 1-pc. I've not heard anyone ever talk about 2-pc pins before. All my hammer guns, and especially my Remington '89, indent primers 'with authority' and pierce many of the new soft/thin primers we get these days. The old ribbed Remington paper shells have primers seemingly made of 4140 steel so I understand. Newer guns barely dent those old shells. Don't have that issue with any of the old Winchester paper shells.

[Austin W Hogan]

Richard; The end of the primer pin is very neatly rounded and smooth, and fits into a similar recess in the half inch long rod ( anvil?) that is hit by the hammer. There is no graininess associated with a break on either piece.
The compressed picture on the web does not really convey the radius, but if you look closely, you will see the ring around the pin where the anvil? was swaged on.

Best, Austin

[Austin W Hogan]

I soaked the firing pins in Ballistol for about an hour, wiped them clean and made a micro photo at .001 inch resolution in back satter, and .0005 inch resolution in forward scatter.

The dark field photo shows the smooth radius at the butt end of the pin. There is a radiused recess in the anvil .032 deep. It is also possible to see a short straight section intersecting the taper of the pin.

Also note the nickle plate on the undamaged anvil.

I am not sure that the web compression will retain this resolution.

This is a technique I am working to examine the appearance of a trout fly from beneath, lookin toward the sun, as a fish might see it.

Best, Austin

[Dave Suponski]

Austin, Fantastic photography! I find it almost hard to believe that Parker would use a two piece construction on the plungers vs. just turning up a one piece plunger and being done with it. Seems like a long way to go to get a short distance if ya know what I mean. I can't even begin to try and understand their logic on this one...

[Austin W Hogan]

Thanks Dave. I have a feeling that this is some how related to hardness. Look at a hammer gun, and the hammer is almost always deformed, but the anvil rarely is. That striking area must be deep and hard; a special case hardening was probably necessary to encase the anvil, without making it brittle. The anvil is 1/2 inch long and 5/16 diameter; the firing pin is 1/2 inch long, 3/16 at the joint and 1/8 where it hits the primer. Case hardening this as one piece would have left little ductile steel in the pin inself, resulting in early fracture and failure.
The real question is ; "how did Parker (King) join these parts". A weld might have nullified the hardening process; a swage would have been difficult considering the hardness of the anvil.

Best, Austin

[Richard Flanders]

Wow. Looks as you say Austin. I agree with Dave and can't figure out the logic on this one, but the hardness issue has to be it somehow. It just doesn't look like the pin sits inside the anvil far enough.

[Dave Suponski]

Austin, Thanks for your insight.I would have thought that the factory would have just cased the whole piece. But subscribing to your school of thought and because these part's were made before the advent of true tool steel case hardening was the only avenue to toughen steel. If Parker case hardened the whole anvil it might not have been possible to draw back just the striker portion with any regularity with out creating a stress riser at the junction of the two diameters.

As far as the method to assemble these two pieces there is no easy answer. To try and swedge a soft pin to a hardened piece is not real feasible. The soft piece would have to be the part being worked and to keep it concentric after swaging would be a real trick especially in a recess as shallow as that. Pretty ingenious fellows to say the least.

[Dean Romig]

As we know "form follows function" so we are left wondering "what would the benefit be in the function of a two-piece striker or anvil/pin?" I, for one, am at a loss as to why this would have been incorporated in so few guns as to never have been noted previously.